Perhaps you could advance the slightest argument for why there is objectivity in art?

Because if there wasn't a possibility for universal claims, i. e. objectivity, and everything could merely be boiled down to taste, as in merely preferring a certain taste in food or a tone of colour over another, you couldn't call anything "art", you'd have to completely abandon up the concept of art, art wouldn't exist.

Although he's reluctant to discussion of the specific reasons for any record's objective value, and thus subverts his own alleged standpoint, NK7's mindset is - in principle - more appopriate than the reduction of the value of a work of art to a very narrow definition of subjectivity.

Perhaps you could advance the slightest argument for why there is objectivity in art?

Because if there wasn't a possibility for universal claims, i. e. objectivity, and everything could merely be boiled down to taste, as in merely preferring a certain taste in food or a tone of colour over another, you couldn't call anything "art", you'd have to completely abandon up the concept of art, art wouldn't exist.

Although he's reluctant to discussion of the specific reasons for any record's objective value, and thus subverts his own alleged standpoint, NK7's mindset is - in principle - more appopriate than the reduction of the value of a work of art to a very narrow definition of subjectivity.

Providing meaning for another term is hardly a compelling reason or argument for the existence of objectivity!

Art is merely 'the expression or application of human creative skill or imagination.'

I don't want to disagree with the idea that some art is better than others, because it's such an instinctive idea, but I think it's very difficult to come up with any convincing argument to justify it, or any realistic schema/consensus about what works of art are great/the greatest.

NK7, seriously, I love Maiden, but I can't really see anything really artistic in it, except MAYBE on Seventh son. It's still pop music (deny this if you want, but that's the fact), there isn't any particular artistical view, it's just music for the sake of music, if you see what I mean. It's music I like much, but it's not art.

But you're right, Bestial mockery is worthless.

On the topic, I don't like any swedish black metal, classic included, except for Abrutpum and Bathory.

Among the Living, Necroticism, Horrorscope, Souls of Black, Human, And Justice for All, Alice in Hell... However it's strange that someone into metal could ever dislike the classics from Maiden, Judas Priest, Venom, Slayer, and so on.

Last edited by Timon on Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:49 am; edited 1 time in total

you mentionned Overkill and tbh i ve never been that much into them, when they came in Town i bought my ticket to give them another chance and to maybe change my mind but the gig was cancelled due to the lack of pre sales
But some consider them as a classic band and i don't ... So here the "can't argue with taste" argument makes sense to me.

Perhaps you could advance the slightest argument for why there is objectivity in art?

Because if there wasn't a possibility for universal claims, i. e. objectivity, and everything could merely be boiled down to taste, as in merely preferring a certain taste in food or a tone of colour over another, you couldn't call anything "art", you'd have to completely abandon up the concept of art, art wouldn't exist.

Although he's reluctant to discussion of the specific reasons for any record's objective value, and thus subverts his own alleged standpoint, NK7's mindset is - in principle - more appopriate than the reduction of the value of a work of art to a very narrow definition of subjectivity.

Providing meaning for another term is hardly a compelling reason or argument for the existence of objectivity!

Art is merely 'the expression or application of human creative skill or imagination.'

I don't want to disagree with the idea that some art is better than others, because it's such an instinctive idea, but I think it's very difficult to come up with any convincing argument to justify it, or any realistic schema/consensus about what works of art are great/the greatest.

Some art is better than others:
no one in their right mind would try to say that some cliche expessionist painter of today (which there are many) is on the same level as Monet, and it's totally irrelevant if someone that's artistically illiterate (the average person who likes pretty paintings) says otherwise, it's easy to dismiss a piece that looks brilliant if you're an art critic because it doesn't say anything more that the originals - that could also be applied to music: (it doesn't matter how good a clone band is...my personal view is that ideas get perfected early in their design usually by the people that first invented or used them.)

Also art has to be labeled as art by the artist, or else an old lady making something creative such as craft might be considered an artist which would be completly wrong, it would actually be a complete blasphemy to an art critic, so it's not technically the application of human creative skill.

Yeah, because then you wouldn't get any moron with a guitar or a can of paint claiming he's an artist doing art. Actually, I think the exact opposite. Whether if something has merit or not is not to be determined by the person who produces it.

Art is a cultural construction.
Take all those artists from centuries ago who gained recognition after their death. No one gave jack shit about them when they were alive, but once they are dead and an "authorized voice" claim their works of art are "masterpieces", people start changing their views on that stuff. And that snowballs with each generation, "it passed the test of time" is one of the most-heard arguments.

Also, it's about the context and how well-distributed your music is. There was a funny experiment about a famous violinist who played for almost an hour in the subway, and almost nobody stopped to listen to him, while he played in a full theater some nights before. That's exactly what I think when people ask me why I don't like classic, untouchable rock like Pink Floyd or Led Zep.

Finally, there are some hippies who claim "art" is any product of any human activity. So taking a dump would be art for them. What a bunch of crap._________________­

Just because it's "art", that doesnt make it any more valid, immune to criticism, or more then what it is. I have absolutely no patience for these people

Some sexually ambigous douchebag takes a dump on canvas and calls it "art".... good for him. That doesn't change the fact that it's literally shit on a canvas, and no amount of art critics ascribing ANY kind of meaning or artistic relevence to it will change that.